UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[Gordyola]

I've found a document that confirms the Etihad sponsorship was covered by the Executive Council, not ADUG. It was part of the Open Skies case brought by the US airlines against the Gulf ones (Etihad, Qatar & Emirates) and claimed that they were in receipt of huge government subsidies. As part of their defence Etihad had a presentation done for the Crown Prince, MBZ, by consultants Booz Allen.
Link here: http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

Go to the link saying "major legal submission" and it'll open a PDF. On page 14 it says:

So there you have it. The Etihad sponsorship money, at least that money that wasn't paid from their own funds, came from the Executive Council, not ADUG.

Great work Colin this may well have been part of City's 200pg ignore by UEFA investigator Leterme

 

[Dubai Blue]

I shall ask him what he means by “football clubs should be run by football men”?

By that logic, he presumably believes football journalism should be written by "football men".

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Get your facts straight. Also, FFP is one of the things we're in no danger of breaking. We're constantly controlled and checked upon by every financial regulatory body in Italy.

And there has never been any corruption issues with financial bodies in Italy have there?? Lol

 

[OB1]

From Der-Spiegel leaked email analysis
"As we discussed, the annual direct obligation for Aabar is GBP 3 million," Pearce wrote. "The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness."

With just a single sentence, Pearce confirmed the accusations that his club had repeatedly, indignantly rejected: Namely, that His Highness, Sheikh Mansour, paid a portion of the sponsoring money himself!

Der-Spiegel have clearly assumed that His Highness is Sheikh Mansour

Pearce, highly experienced Abu Dhabi protocol, won's have made a simple mistake as BlueAnorak said above doing so leads to being bollocked

We have to hope he didn't make a mistake because City are currently getting bollocked...

 

[Fordyboy46]

Hey, even if this comes crashing in all around us we still have a team to support ( Bury fans haven't), still in a cup final, still potentially several more big games to play this season. Plenty of positives in all this mayhem, keep the faith.

 

[KS55]

Say we win this what happens to the premiership case against us is that one over to?

The prem case rests on the UEFA verdict and would fall if we were cleared by CAS. The prem could quite legitimately bring its own case but they would have to start ab initio and produce evidence. If CAS had declared the email as not cogent, the prem would probably just let it go.
When this is over, we can legitimately ask why the prem, knowing that one of their members was under attack, decided to attack as well. The answer, of course, would be Livar-rags.

 

[Scottish Cityzen]

The emails state 'HH' = High Highness = Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the ruler of Abu Dhabi .

Sheikh Mansour and all the other male members of the royal family are 'HE' = His Excellency.

On that point alone there is no validity whatsoever in claims by UEFA or the hostile media that Sheikh Mansour (or ADUG) paid Etihad's sponsorship money.

I hope the above is correct but there is an earlier post on here referencing Sheikh Mansour’s twitter which the username appears to be “HHMansoor” - that account has 1.3 million followers, is that his genuine account and if so it casts confusion on this area of who HH is being referred to?

When I did a quick search there were several titter accounts in his name.

 

[Bluewonder]

Genuine question:
Is the accusation (rightly or wrongly), and the reason for the ban and fine, simply that Sheik Mansour paid into the club via Etihad?
Cheers in advance for any replies

 

[laserblue]

I shall ask him what he means by “football clubs should be run by football men”?

Ask him if he has any thoughts about Sheffield United being Saudi owned, Chelsea and Bournemouth owned by Russian oligarchs, Stoke owned by a family that runs a betting organisation, Brighton owned by a professional gambler, West Ham owned by people who made their money from porn mags and dildos, United owned by a bunch of cowboys with previous experience only in American football and shopping malls, Liverpool run by a shady American with a baseball background whose baseball and football clubs have both been called out for cheating, etc., etc.

 

[Rolee]

Genuine question:
Is the accusation (rightly or wrongly), and the reason for the ban and fine, simply that Sheik Mansour paid into the club via Etihad?
Cheers in advance for any replies

The statement from UEFA doesn't specifically refer to any particular sponsorship but yes the accusation is that declared income from sponsors was overstated.

We're going to have to wait until appeal is over to get the specifics.

 

[Bluewonder]

The statement from UEFA doesn't specifically refer to any particular sponsorship but yes the accusation is that declared income from sponsors was overstated.

We're going to have to wait until appeal is over to get the specifics.

Which wouldn't be an issue if it was at 'fair value' but by their metrics it isn't?

 

[KS55]

Just because he’s half Pakistani, it doesn’t absolve him from (allegedly) being a racist!!!

I have many friends and neighbours with a S.Asia background. In my experience a fair few are casually racist towards black ppl. Arabs? I don't know. I'll ask, er, maybe not.

 

[SouthStandStander]

T

The supreme irony in all of this is that if the Etihad deal is deemed fair value, that means that it is in line with the amount we could have obtained from any other unrelated party transaction.

I.e. the revenues we've received are in themselves entirely reasonable. And therefore UEFA's only possible beef is a technicality, if anything.

We have not artificially inflated our revenues nor venefitted from any such revenues. We could have got the money if not from Etihad, then from ant number of other potential sponsors.

So a 2 year ban is imposed for an alleged technical breach rather than any material advantage gained by us? Absolutely ridiculous judgement in every respect.

It would have more credibility if they had just banned us with the justification "We don't like you."

I'm pretty sure that one of the leaked emails was about another sponsorship deal other than the Etihad one. Cant remember exactly what it read, but it was something along the lines of "we are short of x amount to meet ffp and you need you to pay us additional x amount."

 

[Rolee]

Which wouldn't be an issue if it was at 'fair value' but by their metrics it isn't?

I assume so, without the specifics though it's hard to know for certain.

 

[laserblue]

I hope the above is correct but there is an earlier post on here referencing Sheikh Mansour’s twitter which the username appears to be “HHMansoor” - that account has 1.3 million followers, is that his genuine account and if so it casts confusion on this area of who HH is being referred to?

When I did a quick search there were several titter accounts in his name.

I've been rightly corrected on the 'HE' point which I got wrong but other posters have confirmed that Mansour and other members of theroyal family are referred to as 'HH' with their names immediately following (as in HH Sheikh Mansour). 'HH' on its own refers either to the ruler of Abu Dhabi or the crown prince with opinions on this varying. However, what has been established is that 'HH' on its own can't refer to Mansour.

 

[domalino]

Just caught up with the overnight thread. Some fantastic stuff on here. A source of debate, analysis and new information you wouldn’t find anywhere else.

It's interesting, isn't it, that we know for a fact journalists read these threads yet I wonder if any will pick up on the Etihad/Executive Council email like @Prestwich_Blue.

 

[Rolee]

From Der-Spiegel leaked email analysis
"As we discussed, the annual direct obligation for Aabar is GBP 3 million," Pearce wrote. "The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness."

With just a single sentence, Pearce confirmed the accusations that his club had repeatedly, indignantly rejected: Namely, that His Highness, Sheikh Mansour, paid a portion of the sponsoring money himself!

Der-Spiegel have clearly assumed that His Highness is Sheikh Mansour

Pearce, highly experienced Abu Dhabi protocol, won's have made a simple mistake as BlueAnorak said above doing so leads to being bollocked

Even if HH is Mansour, what are alternate sources? Could they be shareholders in the companies that are providing the sponsorship. I don't see how that's proof that Mansour provided the shortfall himself.

 

[supercity88]

We have to hope he didn't make a mistake because City are currently getting bollocked...

If HH always refers to one person (not Mansour) then evidence will be there. What a great way to justify it! An easy off tye record chat to say, we need it to be from Mansour but put HH just this once!

 

[bluekeith]

My take on it is that Ethihad were going through and still are a tough time and needed a cash injection which came from the government of Abu Dhabi . All the experts are linking it to city but if you look at there portfolio of who they sponcer it is huge Sydney opera House to the MLS with basketball rugby and athletes in between

 

[Franknorgrovesnephew]

The prem case rests on the UEFA verdict and would fall if we were cleared by CAS. The prem could quite legitimately bring its own case but they would have to start ab initio and produce evidence. If CAS had declared the email as not cogent, the prem would probably just let it go.
When this is over, we can legitimately ask why the prem, knowing that one of their members was under attack, decided to attack as well. The answer, of course, would be Livar-rags.

Thanks mate